Barton v Commissioner for Motor Transport [1957] HCA 50

Barton v Commissioner for Motor Transport [1957] HCA 50

By majority, s. 27 of the Transport (Division of Functions) Act 1932-1952 and its 1956 amendment did not bar the plaintiff's action because the Commissioner for Motor Transport was not a commissioner appointed under the relevant Act, nor acting under an Act conferring such powers in the sense intended by s. 27; further, the 1956 amendment could not validly operate retrospectively to bar recovery of involuntary payments demanded under statutory provisions invalid under s. 92 of the Constitution; and the Crown was not covered by s. 27's limitation.

Parties
Plaintiff: Gordon Page Barton; Defendant: Commissioner for Motor Transport
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Special Case Stated (removal From Supreme Court of New South Wales) / Final Judgment of the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Plaintiff not barred; claims may proceed if otherwise maintainable.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Inter State Trade and Commerce (s 92 of Constitution), Validity of State Legislation, Statutes of Limitation, Recovery of Moneys Paid Under Invalid Statute, Interpretation of Statutory Amendments
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Freedom of Inter State Trade and Commerce (s 92 of Constitution) Validity of State Legislation Statutes of Limitation Recovery of Moneys Paid Under Invalid Statute Interpretation of Statutory Amendments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon Page Barton

Plaintiff

Commissioner for Motor Transport

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Special Case Stated (removal From Supreme Court of New South Wales) / Final Judgment of the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action to recover moneys paid under an invalid State Act is barred by s. 27 of the Transport (Division of Functions) Act 1932-1952 (N.S.W.) and its 1956 amendment
  2. 2 Whether s. 27 and its amendment are invalid or inapplicable by reason of s. 92 of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner for Motor Transport is protected by limitation provisions as a corporation sole under relevant statutes

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, s. 27 of the Transport (Division of Functions) Act 1932-1952 and its 1956 amendment did not bar the plaintiff's action because the Commissioner for Motor Transport was not a commissioner appointed under the relevant Act, nor acting under an Act conferring such powers in the sense intended by s. 27; further, the 1956 amendment could not validly operate retrospectively to bar recovery of involuntary payments demanded under statutory provisions invalid under s. 92 of the Constitution; and the Crown was not covered by s. 27's limitation.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff not barred; claims may proceed if otherwise maintainable.

Orders

  • Section 27 as amended is invalid and inapplicable to the plaintiff’s action as to causes of action accruing before 13 September 1955.
  • Section 27 as enacted by s. 2(1)(b) of Act No. 46 of 1940 is inapplicable to the plaintiff’s action.